(August 16, 2003) Lots of people (well, two) have wondered why I'm not bombarding them with e-mails anymore. So here 'tis. At least in this country, in the end liberalism wins, though it certainly takes awhile. The reason I take pen to paper (or more accurately fingers to keyboard) regards Rick Santorum, a Senator [now former] from Pennsylvania. You remember him, he is the one who became famous for intemperate comments about all laws regarding morality were off because of a Supreme Court decision that Gays have a right to privacy in their own homes and which struck down a Texas law. Less noticed in his speech was that he said this followed from an earlier Connecticut law, also struck down by the Supreme Court, in which it was against the law for married people to use contraceptives!
Well, now Santorum leads a charge accusing the Democrats of playing an anti-Catholic card to prevent a couple judges, who happen to be Roman Catholic, from promotions to be judges on higher courts (I suspect that once he is away from cameras and reporters, he laughs his head off.). Lost in all this is that President Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, and also, as it happens, a Democrat to boot. If you are old enough, you may recall that the Republicans opposed him on the grounds that he would be taking orders from the Pope, a charge that Kennedy vehemently opposed. Well, time moves on, and now we have Republicans wanting to appoint Roman Catholic judges to high court positions (even if they won't nominate one for President). If the Democrats have charged that they would be taking orders from the Pope, I haven't heard it. Boys and girls, this is a real advance. You also may recall that one knock on Adlai Stevenson, when he ran for President, was that he was divorced. By the time Republican Ronald Reagan, who also was a divorcee, ran for President, it was a non issue. As to pot (Marihuana), it was a big issue when Clinton was running for president, but George "Dubya" Bush got let off by simply saying he had done some things when he was younger that he wasn't proud of. Whether I agree or disagree with what these people are doing or saying, liberalism is winning.
We now have in a Republican administration, a Black Secretary of State and a Black woman, of all things, as the Presidential security advisor. I mention the woman part because it was just a few Republican administrations ago that a prominent official, male of course, said that women don't understand things like throw weights (for rockets). I can hardly believe my eyes, and ears. There are Republicans who grouse about such appointments, to be sure, and can hardly wait to get Secretary Powell out of there, but it looks like he will stay a whole term. For good measure, I believe we have an Asian-American woman as Secretary of Labor and an Asian-American man as Secretary of HUD. We also have a Republican Governor, Jeb Bush, married to a Hispanic American and former Senator Gramm married to an Asian woman. Ditto for a ''conservative" columnist (George Will, in case you can't guess).
Well, I grew up in a pretty conservative Republican neighborhood, and I can tell you people would have been shocked if I had come home with a Black, Asian, or Hispanic girl friend. I also might mention that had I come home with a Roman Catholic girlfriend, it would have created a strained situation with my parents who would have at least gotten a lot of sympathy from the neighbors. It used to be said by the more liberal members about any of these groups that "They are nice people, but I wouldn't want my child to marry one!" I'll bet many of you remember this phrase. Yes, liberalism is winning.
While I am at it, I might mention that some aspects of liberalism have been adopted by Republicans that probably shouldn't be. The neighborhood I grew up in was fiscally very conservative, not to the point that they wouldn't take out a loan to buy a house and maybe an automobile, but they thought Federal deficits were immoral. I recall one neighbor telling me in the late 1940s that these Federal deficits would destroy the economy though he admitted he didn't know exactly when. So what I have in mind here is the adoption by Republicans of the liberal notion that the bigger the Federal deficit the better. But then, after all, it was President Nixon who said that we are all Keynesians now (though Keynes actually said we should pay back deficits in economically good times).
I might add that then, as now, you heard about the evils of handing Federal deficits on to our children. Well, here I am one of the children paying off for the Federal deficits from our parents age and handing on even bigger ones to the current children. Make no mistake, I believe this is a serious matter. The deficit for the current fiscal year is estimated to be $450 billion. That is just about the sum of all the discretionary spending in the Federal budget (All the departments such as Interior, HUD, Treasury, Energy, Health (excluding Social Security and Medicare which are not discretionary because they are supported by special taxes.), Education, Veterans Affairs, etc.). So you would have to wipe all these out to just balance the budget, and, incidentally, you would probably run up a deficit next fiscal year which is expected to be bigger than this year. There still are a few fiscally conservative Republicans, but they seem to get rolled.
Well, if the Democrats want to get into our wallets, the Republicans want to get into our bedrooms. Santorum isn't alone in feeling frustrated that the Supreme court won't let him (so far). Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice by the way, wrote that the verdict of privacy for Gays would destroy lots of state laws controlling morals, among which he mentioned masturbation (!). It would be kind of fun to see him take a lie detector test on whether he had disobeyed that law.
An update added November 8, 2008: We have just witnessed Sen. Barack Obama - a black man and a Democrat - being elected president of the United States on November 4, 2008, and the Republicans ran Sen. John McCain - Roman Catholic - against him. Walter "Fritz" Mondale selected Democrat Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York as his Vice-Presidential nominee in the 1984 election, the first woman nominated in that position. Ferraro was eventually followed by Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who was selected by John McCain as his running mate in 2008. Although neither candidate became vice-president, it is now all right for women to be selected as presidential running mates. William Clinton had Madeleine Albright as the first woman Secretary of State. In the first term of George "Dubya" Bush, Gen. Colin Powell was the first Black Secretary of State who was followed by Condoleezza Rice -a Black woman. In the end, liberalism still wins in these United States.
An update added October 4, 2009: Now with Sonia Sotomeyer, six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics, two are Jewish, and one is Protestant.
An update added December 31, 2009: There is lots more that could have been said about liberalism winning in the long run. Women and minorities being able to enter any university and graduate schools of any university is certainly not a minor advance. Getting rid of legalized Jim Crow was certainly another major advance. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was another major advance, in this case put over the top by Republicans (This was before the solid south of the Democrats became the Southern Strategy of the Republicans.). Today you will even see women and minorities as CEOs of major corporations. And Hillary Clinton certainly put a whole lot of cracks in the glass ceiling of a woman running for president of these United States.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN THE U.S.
As I write this, the health care bill has finally passed the Senate with the required 60 votes. The bill is so long (over a thousand pages) with so many amendments (over 300 pages) that it is hard to know what is in the bill. But it seems something like 30 million more people will be included in health care nsurance, that you can not be refused insurance because of prior health conditions, and that nearly everyone will be required to have health insurance.
But there are some things that are not in the bill that ought to be:
(1) Tort Reform: Neither political party seems to want tort reform. For six years that Republicans had control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House and did nothing about tort reform. It is felt that Democrats are in the pocket of the trial lawyers so it is no surprised Democrats don't want to address tort reform. Further, it is said that the total amount of savings would be "only" about 4%. Assuming this is true, we are still talking about at least hundreds of millions of dollars. There are other reports that say the litigation and malpractice insurance total only about 1.5% of the medical costs (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/), figures that seem absurdly low. I doubt, however, that any sort of accurate figure can be obtained on defensive medicine costs. But physicians malpractice insurance costs are out of sight. A physician who specializes in premature babies said his insurance is $150,000/yr. For example, if a doctor.s appointment is $100, the first 4 to 6 patients (depending on the number of days he works in a year) the doctor sees in a day go to pay his malpractice insurance. And then more patients have to be seen to pay the rent, hire a nurse, a part-time bookkeeper, and a receptionist plus other work expenses. I have read that a neurosurgeon's insurance is $250,000. Such expenses must be made up before these physicians start earning any wages.
(2) Emergency Room: A lot of people don't seem to be concerned that the primary health care for many people is the emergency room. Yet, the emergency room is the most expensive kind of health care (http://www.consumerhealthratings.com/index.php?action=showSubCats&cat_id=274) averaging $560/visit and for people aged 45-64 it was $832/visit in 2003. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas gives the following figures: " What should you know before going to the E.R.? The national average E.R. visit costs $383, while the national average doctor’s office visit is approximately $60" (http://www.bcbstx.com/employer/hccc/topic6.htm). Certainly any universal health plan should aim to reserve the emergency room for emergencies. But once again, we are told that emergency room costs are only a few percent of the total costs. Tell that to people who wait 6-7 hrs in the emergency room for some sort of treatment. And much emergency room treatment is not paid for by the patient but is passed on to those who can pay.
(3) Control of medical insurance costs has received much note as a significant percentage of insurance costs actually go to insurance companies seeking ways so that various types of coverage are not covered. The proposal to do this in the health care bill was to be a public option, but this provision has been removed. It is not clear whether the remaining provisions will have any effect. An agreement with the insurance companies has been that if everyone is to be covered by health insurance, then they would be willing to do away with "preexisting conditions" as a reason to eliminate insurance coverage. Apparently this provision is in the current bill.
(4) Rationing. Of course there is rationing of health care now, based on money. Plus certain types of treatment are not covered by Medicare - anything judged to be cosmetic surgery for example and, of course, dental expenses are not covered. And other tests are restricted - PSA tests for men and mammograms for women are limited to one per year. The word rationing conjures up bad vibrations, but they will be increasingly necessary. How many expensive organ transplants will a person be allowed to have in a lifetime, for example?
We do not yet know what compromises will be made to the current health bills in committee before a final bill can be voted on in congress and presented to the President. At best, it would appear that what is eventually signed into law will be a beginning and not a total solution.
But there are some things that are not in the bill that ought to be:
(1) Tort Reform: Neither political party seems to want tort reform. For six years that Republicans had control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House and did nothing about tort reform. It is felt that Democrats are in the pocket of the trial lawyers so it is no surprised Democrats don't want to address tort reform. Further, it is said that the total amount of savings would be "only" about 4%. Assuming this is true, we are still talking about at least hundreds of millions of dollars. There are other reports that say the litigation and malpractice insurance total only about 1.5% of the medical costs (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/), figures that seem absurdly low. I doubt, however, that any sort of accurate figure can be obtained on defensive medicine costs. But physicians malpractice insurance costs are out of sight. A physician who specializes in premature babies said his insurance is $150,000/yr. For example, if a doctor.s appointment is $100, the first 4 to 6 patients (depending on the number of days he works in a year) the doctor sees in a day go to pay his malpractice insurance. And then more patients have to be seen to pay the rent, hire a nurse, a part-time bookkeeper, and a receptionist plus other work expenses. I have read that a neurosurgeon's insurance is $250,000. Such expenses must be made up before these physicians start earning any wages.
(2) Emergency Room: A lot of people don't seem to be concerned that the primary health care for many people is the emergency room. Yet, the emergency room is the most expensive kind of health care (http://www.consumerhealthratings.com/index.php?action=showSubCats&cat_id=274) averaging $560/visit and for people aged 45-64 it was $832/visit in 2003. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas gives the following figures: " What should you know before going to the E.R.? The national average E.R. visit costs $383, while the national average doctor’s office visit is approximately $60" (http://www.bcbstx.com/employer/hccc/topic6.htm). Certainly any universal health plan should aim to reserve the emergency room for emergencies. But once again, we are told that emergency room costs are only a few percent of the total costs. Tell that to people who wait 6-7 hrs in the emergency room for some sort of treatment. And much emergency room treatment is not paid for by the patient but is passed on to those who can pay.
(3) Control of medical insurance costs has received much note as a significant percentage of insurance costs actually go to insurance companies seeking ways so that various types of coverage are not covered. The proposal to do this in the health care bill was to be a public option, but this provision has been removed. It is not clear whether the remaining provisions will have any effect. An agreement with the insurance companies has been that if everyone is to be covered by health insurance, then they would be willing to do away with "preexisting conditions" as a reason to eliminate insurance coverage. Apparently this provision is in the current bill.
(4) Rationing. Of course there is rationing of health care now, based on money. Plus certain types of treatment are not covered by Medicare - anything judged to be cosmetic surgery for example and, of course, dental expenses are not covered. And other tests are restricted - PSA tests for men and mammograms for women are limited to one per year. The word rationing conjures up bad vibrations, but they will be increasingly necessary. How many expensive organ transplants will a person be allowed to have in a lifetime, for example?
We do not yet know what compromises will be made to the current health bills in committee before a final bill can be voted on in congress and presented to the President. At best, it would appear that what is eventually signed into law will be a beginning and not a total solution.
Monday, December 7, 2009
THE BULL MARKET OF 2009
From about mid-March through the end of this year, the stock market indices have risen marketly. A common explantion of this increase in confidence in the investing community is that the week dollar is the cause. This may not be the case as the dollar was weaker in 2008 and the stock market indices declined.
From my post on Motley Fool - #313939 on the Investment Club Analysis/Macro Economic Trends and Risk.: About the stock rise being due to the falling dollar, from February 28th through August 5th in 2008, the dollar index spent only one day above 74.0 (June 13th at 74.06). All this period is lower than we have seen to date this year. I don't recall any boom in the stock market then. In fact the S&P500 fell from 1367 to 1285 during that period or 6%. Personally, I think the claim that our present stock market cyclical bull market is due to the weak dollar is pretty weak. I'm not sure what the bull market is due to, perhaps speculation that the stock market drop overshot in its decline? Optimism that the all the stimulation from super low interest rates and Federal stimulus is bullish long term?
Incidentally in an op-ed article on 3 December 2009, Robert Samuelson said, "Despite huge federal budget deficits, total borrowing in the economy dropped in the first half of the year; this hasn't happened in statistics dating to 1952." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120203400.html This is a measure of just how much borrowing has dropped in the non-govermental sector in 2009 to counteract Federal spending. In view of this, perhaps it is not surprising that inflation is tame.
From my post on Motley Fool - #313939 on the Investment Club Analysis/Macro Economic Trends and Risk.: About the stock rise being due to the falling dollar, from February 28th through August 5th in 2008, the dollar index spent only one day above 74.0 (June 13th at 74.06). All this period is lower than we have seen to date this year. I don't recall any boom in the stock market then. In fact the S&P500 fell from 1367 to 1285 during that period or 6%. Personally, I think the claim that our present stock market cyclical bull market is due to the weak dollar is pretty weak. I'm not sure what the bull market is due to, perhaps speculation that the stock market drop overshot in its decline? Optimism that the all the stimulation from super low interest rates and Federal stimulus is bullish long term?
Incidentally in an op-ed article on 3 December 2009, Robert Samuelson said, "Despite huge federal budget deficits, total borrowing in the economy dropped in the first half of the year; this hasn't happened in statistics dating to 1952." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120203400.html This is a measure of just how much borrowing has dropped in the non-govermental sector in 2009 to counteract Federal spending. In view of this, perhaps it is not surprising that inflation is tame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
